Coined if not linked in honor of a great wordsmith, William Safire.
Footnote: in lieu of LU(Labelists United).
In Salon *. / In his honor.
* There is no postread (see video).
Showing posts with label William Safire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William Safire. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 2009
Lost Leader of the Write.
William Safire, R.I.P.
In honor of the departed and a loyal opposition, I lead with the write source and then what's left. He will be missed more than words can say. More than some can catch up on. Nonetheless it was about the culture of words.
Previous mistributes: My letter to the editor of the now defunct, King County Journal, his replacement Will I ams, and a reprise.*]
May he truly Rest in Peace.
*missing reference
In honor of the departed and a loyal opposition, I lead with the write source and then what's left. He will be missed more than words can say. More than some can catch up on. Nonetheless it was about the culture of words.
Previous mistributes: My letter to the editor of the now defunct, King County Journal, his replacement Will I ams, and a reprise.*]
May he truly Rest in Peace.
*missing reference
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Poetic Justice
Right Face Left Faith
Great minds think alike
But being alike does not make right
Being right may make might
But more important is thinking
Right?
Being right is more likely
Why great minds will think alike
Thinking may not be so likely
In those that just think might
Right.
Faith is nowhere near alike
The truth that others think is might
Faith is might and more like maybe
Unless you only think it's right
Not maybe!
(link to updated commentary)
Fearnauts
There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.
So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.
Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.
Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.
(not to mention psychology and physics)
Unified Poem
Everything
is but
a Wave
between
perspectives
in Time
and Space
(Theme: Fear of Disciplines in particular Economics.)
[This falls in the tinkering and filing category, not to mention labels or discipline, let alone hiatus. Hint? In Updated find #6 ]Or Bottom line? Or writing for the right?
[Irony of all ironies or poetic justice, I must admit to an erroneous leap myself. Long story short:"Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean." "Philosophical" was a word he used to lower the boom on Dean, but it was not he but about him(Safire) in which Lying in Ponds had a category of Philosophy. Which does not really shake my perspective, but complicates references to #6 and bumps into #7.]
Great minds think alike
But being alike does not make right
Being right may make might
But more important is thinking
Right?
Being right is more likely
Why great minds will think alike
Thinking may not be so likely
In those that just think might
Right.
Faith is nowhere near alike
The truth that others think is might
Faith is might and more like maybe
Unless you only think it's right
Not maybe!
(link to updated commentary)
Fearnauts
There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.
So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.
Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.
Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.
(not to mention psychology and physics)
Unified Poem
Everything
is but
a Wave
between
perspectives
in Time
and Space
(Theme: Fear of Disciplines in particular Economics.)
[This falls in the tinkering and filing category, not to mention labels or discipline, let alone hiatus. Hint? In Updated find #6 ]Or Bottom line? Or writing for the right?
[Irony of all ironies or poetic justice, I must admit to an erroneous leap myself. Long story short:"Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean." "Philosophical" was a word he used to lower the boom on Dean, but it was not he but about him(Safire) in which Lying in Ponds had a category of Philosophy. Which does not really shake my perspective, but complicates references to #6 and bumps into #7.]
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.
===========================================================
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
My Context
[The Journal word count was 250 words and the New York Times wants no more than 150, limiting me to the style I chose rather than to actually try to put in context what Safire failed to do.]
For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend
For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works
[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal
For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend
For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works
[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal
New York Times
Safire Search Context,
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]
In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.
It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.
After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.
[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]
In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.
It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.
After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.
[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]
Safire Proved Urban Legend Monger
and Scandalous Hypocrite
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]
There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.
He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.
After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.
* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.
** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]
There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.
He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.
After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.
* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.
** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)